OT - New Hall of Famers: Bagwell, Raines and Ivan Rodriguez

[conor912]

The system is set up in a way that allows for B and C tier HOFers. Ten years on the ballot is absurd. For a truly elite HOF it would be one year.....One chance.....In or out.

[JollyElm]

I can't believe Raines got in. We all saw him play his entire career. While he was on the field, did anyone ever think, "He's a sure Hall of Famer"???? No frickin' way. Like others have said, he was a decent player who stole bases, but far from a 'great.'

[bn2cardz]

Originally Posted by conor912

The system is set up in a way that allows for B and C tier HOFers. Ten years on the ballot is absurd. For a truly elite HOF it would be one year.....One chance.....In or out.

It does have a lot of flaws, but to say the elite are the ones voted in one year would be a mistake.

Joe DiMaggio - Got 0.4% his first year in 1945, got put back on in 1953 but received only 44.3%, he didn't get in until 1955.

Cy Young - On 1936 BBWAA and Veterans and received 49.1 and 41.7% respectively. Got in on the 1937 ballot with 76.1%

Rogers Hornsby - First ballot was 1936, didn't make it until 1942 with 78.1%

I think one of the best that had to wait the longest was Arky Vaughan. Some rank him as the second best SS of all time behind Wagner. Jay Jaffe has him ranked at 58th in his 2014 JAWS 75 FOR 75: RANKING THE HALL OF FAME'S TOP PLAYERS. He won a slash line triple crown (BA/OBP/SLG). He started on the ballot in 1953 with 0.4% and didn't get in until 1985. He may have been hurt by a three year retirement at the age of 32 until his return at age 35 in protest to playing for Leo Durocher.

[ejharrington]

Schilling is a Hall of Fame player is every way (core stats, WAR, and big time performances). The sportswriters who did not vote for him because they don't like him personally are abusing the huge power they have been granted.

[conor912]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

It does have a lot of flaws, but to say the elite are the ones voted in one year would be a mistake.

Joe DiMaggio - Got 0.4% his first year in 1945, got put back on in 1953 but received only 44.3%, he didn't get in until 1955.

Cy Young - On 1936 BBWAA and Veterans and received 49.1 and 41.7% respectively. Got in on the 1937 ballot with 76.1%

Rogers Hornsby - First ballot was 1936, didn't make it until 1942 with 78.1%

I think one of the best that had to wait the longest was Arky Vaughan. Some rank him as the second best SS of all time behind Wagner. Jay Jaffe has him ranked at 58th in his 2014 JAWS 75 FOR 75: RANKING THE HALL OF FAME'S TOP PLAYERS. He won a slash line triple crown (BA/OBP/SLG). He started on the ballot in 1953 with 0.4% and didn't get in until 1985. He may have been hurt by a three year retirement at the age of 32 until his return at age 35 in protest to playing for Leo Durocher.

Perhaps, though I'd recommend reading the article I linked in post #13. All Here's a line from it:

"Until 1946, BBWAA members could vote for literally any player -- living or dead, active or retired."

All three of your examples fall before 1946. There literally was no ballot or set criteria, which is why voting was so wonky and all over the place. If you give a few hundred writers each a limited number of votes, and tell them they can vote for any player who ever played (or is still playing), the chances of any one player getting 75% are fairly nil.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

It does have a lot of flaws, but to say the elite are the ones voted in one year would be a mistake.

Joe DiMaggio - Got 0.4% his first year in 1945, got put back on in 1953 but received only 44.3%, he didn't get in until 1955.

Cy Young - On 1936 BBWAA and Veterans and received 49.1 and 41.7% respectively. Got in on the 1937 ballot with 76.1%

Rogers Hornsby - First ballot was 1936, didn't make it until 1942 with 78.1%

I think one of the best that had to wait the longest was Arky Vaughan. Some rank him as the second best SS of all time behind Wagner. Jay Jaffe has him ranked at 58th in his 2014 JAWS 75 FOR 75: RANKING THE HALL OF FAME'S TOP PLAYERS. He won a slash line triple crown (BA/OBP/SLG). He started on the ballot in 1953 with 0.4% and didn't get in until 1985. He may have been hurt by a three year retirement at the age of 32 until his return at age 35 in protest to playing for Leo Durocher.

the early years of HOF voting were also hurt because so many really great players were eligible and not in, so with a limit of 10(out of maybe 60 future HOF players) to choose from, a lot of guys kept getting left off ballots.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by bn2cardz

It does have a lot of flaws, but to say the elite are the ones voted in one year would be a mistake.

Joe DiMaggio - Got 0.4% his first year in 1945, got put back on in 1953 but received only 44.3%, he didn't get in until 1955.

Cy Young - On 1936 BBWAA and Veterans and received 49.1 and 41.7% respectively. Got in on the 1937 ballot with 76.1%

Rogers Hornsby - First ballot was 1936, didn't make it until 1942 with 78.1%

I think one of the best that had to wait the longest was Arky Vaughan. Some rank him as the second best SS of all time behind Wagner. Jay Jaffe has him ranked at 58th in his 2014 JAWS 75 FOR 75: RANKING THE HALL OF FAME'S TOP PLAYERS. He won a slash line triple crown (BA/OBP/SLG). He started on the ballot in 1953 with 0.4% and didn't get in until 1985. He may have been hurt by a three year retirement at the age of 32 until his return at age 35 in protest to playing for Leo Durocher.

DiMaggio was still playing in 1945. He had just retired in 1951, getting elected was faster than the now 5 year wait guys.

Rogers Hornsby was still active in 1936, playing his last game in 1937, elected 4 years after retirement.

No player has ever been elected while still an active player.

Cy Young wasn't elected because of confusion about the ballot. Voters weren't sure if he should be included with pre 1900 or post 1900 players.

Arky Vaughan is one of 3 players who in my opinion slipped through the cracks and had to be elected by the Veterans Committee. 300 game winner Eddie Plank and Johnny Mize with his OPS+ of 158, but low counting stats due to missing 3 years serving in WW2 are the others. I think Vaughan's tragic death in 1952 before he was even on the ballot also hurt his case.

[midwaylandscaping]

HOF's and voting are highly subjective. Bagwell should have gotten in sooner, but, at least he's in. Rodriguez looks like a first ballot HOF'er, and became one. My only gripe with Ivan has to do with Mike Piazza. Who also should have been a first ballot HOF'er. One could craft an easy narrative that Piazza's wait led to Ivan's first ballot induction.

Raines, well, I can see both sides. I like to use traditional and advanced stats. I think it's the best way to go about things. Of course this also means I don't find batting average(or RBI for that matter) to be worthless stats, or only having worth within context. To me that's a false narrative.
But anyway, I use advanced and traditional and my own noggin, and don't condescend or take pot shots at those who use primarily one set. That's counter productive. I would not have voted for him myself, there are far too many superior players on the ballot to Raines, in my opinion. Tim didn't measure up by any standard to Rickey Henderson, that's obvious, but who does. The main name thrown up when Tim's name is mentioned. Rickey is an inner circle HOF'er. There's a wide gap between the two, and something of a false equivalency. As a Yankee fan I enjoyed Tim's time with the Yanks, and he was a key contributor in limited spots for the 96 and 98 World Series winners. There are worse players in the Hall than Raines, there are better players not in. I can understand some, not all, of the arguments for Tim's induction. Just wouldn't have advocated for it myself, nor voted for him after a lot of thought.

[RCMcKenzie]

It would be fun for someone to open up a museum down the street from the Hall with Pete Rose, Barry Bonds and Shoeless Joe Jackson in there. They could put in Bill Dahlen, Hal Chase, Roger Maris etc..

As a kid, Fred Lynn was my favorite player. He is in the Red Sox HOF and that's where I would put Raines, Bagwell and Pudge, in the Expos, Astros and Rangers HOF. Up there with Cesar Cedeno, Bob Watson, Jose Cruz, Terry Puhl and JR Richard.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by conor912

The system is set up in a way that allows for B and C tier HOFers. Ten years on the ballot is absurd. For a truly elite HOF it would be one year.....One chance.....In or out.

Conor, my first inclination was to agree with your post. Certainly, for the last 30 years I do completely agree with you. There were a few who were 'almost great' during that period, like Sandberg, Jenkins and Hunter; however, the truly great all got in their first year.

Prior to that you have Marichal and Killebrew who didn't get in immediately, and I consider both to be great and HOF-worthy. But I wonder if there isn't currently a mentality among voters that they can put off voting for players because they have ten years - they don't have to start thinking hard until the 8 or 9 year mark. If it were reduced to 'now or never', Killebrew, Marichal and maybe even a few others, might have gotten in on the first ballot.

I would love to see a HOF that contained only the truly great players, but our sports mentality is 'the more the merrier', as such a philosophy can generally be linked to a result of 'more money'.

[bravos4evr]

you old guys crack me up, the thing is, most voters don't use stats like batting avg anymore because they are kinda worthless and incomplete statistics that can create a false image of a player's ability.

How Raines compares with other LF'ers (where he played the majority of his career) all time :

14th in fWAR

2nd in stolen bases

1st in stolen base %

40th in OBP

Raines is perhaps the 2nd greatest base stealer and all around bade runner of all time. considering that he was also good at getting on base and an avg fielder his total production is pretty high.

He isn't an inner circle HOF'er,but he's in the same tier as Kirby Puckett, Tony Gwynn and Craig Biggio.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Conor, my first inclination was to agree with your post. Certainly, for the last 30 years I do completely agree with you. There were a few who were 'almost great' during that period, like Sandberg, Jenkins and Hunter; however, the truly great all got in their first year.

Prior to that you have Marichal and Killebrew who didn't get in immediately, and I consider both to be great and HOF-worthy. But I wonder if there isn't currently a mentality among voters that they can put off voting for players because they have ten years - they don't have to start thinking hard until the 8 or 9 year mark. If it were reduced to 'now or never', Killebrew, Marichal and maybe even a few others, might have gotten in on the first ballot.

I would love to see a HOF that contained only the truly great players, but our sports mentality is 'the more the merrier', as such a philosophy can generally be linked to a result of 'more money'.

bolding mine:

yes I know from reading voter's articles that many leave guys off they know will stay on the ballot so as to use one of their 10 spots on a guy they want to either keep on for another year or try to get in. IMO all of this could be avoided if the HOF would change the process from "pick 10" to "give each player in the ballot a vote of yes or no"

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

bolding mine:

yes I know from reading voter's articles that many leave guys off they know will stay on the ballot so as to use one of their 10 spots on a guy they want to either keep on for another year or try to get in. IMO all of this could be avoided if the HOF would change the process from "pick 10" to "give each player in the ballot a vote of yes or no"

I agree with you on the 'yes or no' idea. I'm curious whether the HOF would look much different as a result. It might affect Edgar Martinez, as some voters are realizing that currently popular new metrics make him look much better.

I know a HOF voter who I will ask about this, as he voted for 10 players this go-round.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Runscott

I agree with you on the 'yes or no' idea. I'm curious whether the HOF would look much different as a result. It might affect Edgar Martinez, as some voters are realizing that currently popular new metrics make him look much better.

I know a HOF voter who I will ask about this, as he voted for 10 players this go-round.

I think it would accomplish 2 things:

1- clear the logjam of players and thus make it easier for guys to get in earlier in the future

2- by requiring a response on each player it would avoid voters from pulling the dick move and leaving guys off because they think "he's not a first ballot HOF'er" so we wouldn't have the goofy travesties of guys like Maddux and Griffey Jr not being unanimous selections because one guy has some sort of beef.